So I guess that is the fundamental difference between Catholicism vs. EO and OO...love versus no love.

I'm sure the Orthodox Christians raped and massacred by the Crusaders sympathize with you. Get off your self-constructed moral high horse - the part of RCism that has diverged from Orthodoxy is the only thing attacked here, not RCs.

I see this brought up every so often; It sounds like Islamic rhetoric still used today. However, despite the fourth Crusade being a 1,000 year old event used to justify hate from the EOs against the RCs, the events are not what they are made out to be. The original intent was to take Jerusalem from the Muslims by way of Egypt, yet events were taken out of control from the hands of Pope Innocent III.

The Hungarian king was Catholic and had himself agreed to join this Crusade (though this was mostly for political reasons, and he had made no actual preparations to leave). Many of the Crusaders were opposed to attacking Zara, and some, including a force led by the elder Simon de Montfort, refused to participate altogether and returned home. While the Papal legate to the Crusade Cardinal Peter of Capua endorsed the move as necessary to prevent the crusade's complete failure, Pope Innocent III was alarmed at this development and wrote a letter to the Crusading leadership threatening excommunication.[14]

Historian Geoffrey Hindley's The Crusades mentions that in 1202 Pope Innocent III forbade the Crusaders of Western Christendom from committing any atrocious acts on their Christian neighbours, despite wanting to secure papal authority over Byzantium.[15] This letter was concealed from the bulk of the army and the attack proceeded. The citizens of Zara made reference to the fact that they were fellow Catholics by hanging banners marked with crosses from their windows and the walls of the city, but nevertheless the city fell after a brief siege. When Innocent III heard of the sack he sent a letter to the crusaders excommunicating them, and ordered them to return to their holy vows and head for Jerusalem. Out of fear that this would dissolve the army the leaders of the crusade decided not to inform the army of this.

So no, the sack wasn't by the Church, but by a rogue Army lead by Princes', intent on getting their own political agenda fulfilled.

You fail to understand that, to the Orthodox on the ground at that time, the actions of the Crusades in general and the Fourth Crusade in particular, were completely scandalous. One cannot simply brush off even something that got out of hand. While Pope Innocent III was appalled, the results of the Fourth Crusade remained, and the attitude of the Papacy toward the Eastern Churches did not change.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Fundamentally, it's really not about the pope, but about the actions of the Western Christians, and their attitudes--which were the very things which destroyed the Orthodox papacy in the first place, albeit in an attempt to reform.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

That's right! Because remember, true Christians never, ever, EVER forgive or forget a sin committed against them OR their ancestors. That's how you know you're dealing with a genuine follower of Christ, who, as you may recall, advised His followers NEVER to forgive their persecutors, but to exact revenge whenever possible - "unto ages of ages, Amen!"

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

That's right! Because remember, true Christians never, ever, EVER forgive or forget a sin committed against them OR their ancestors. That's how you know you're dealing with a genuine follower of Christ, who, as you may recall, advised His followers NEVER to forgive their persecutors, but to exact revenge whenever possible - "unto ages of ages, Amen!"

You fail to understand that, to the Orthodox on the ground at that time, the actions of the Crusades in general and the Fourth Crusade in particular, were completely scandalous. One cannot simply brush off even something that got out of hand. While Pope Innocent III was appalled, the results of the Fourth Crusade remained, and the attitude of the Papacy toward the Eastern Churches did not change.

I don't "fail to understand" that. However, like many 'scandalous' things, both on the personal level, as well as the state level, events aren't always what they are perceived to be.

What attitude of the Papacy is that? That the EO Churches return to communion with the Pope?

Fundamentally, it's really not about the pope, but about the actions of the Western Christians, and their attitudes--which were the very things which destroyed the Orthodox papacy in the first place, albeit in an attempt to reform.

Western Christians... I see. "It's really not even about Catholicism... it's just that I don't like you."

Back to your first post, from a few minutes ago, the Fourth Crusade is a justification for your distaste for Roman Catholicism.

That's right! Because remember, true Christians never, ever, EVER forgive or forget a sin committed against them OR their ancestors. That's how you know you're dealing with a genuine follower of Christ, who, as you may recall, advised His followers NEVER to forgive their persecutors, but to exact revenge whenever possible - "unto ages of ages, Amen!"

There are two things here. First, the sack of Constantinople, which for whatever reasons, was a horror afflicted on the Christians of the East by Christians of the West. It is true that the Ottoman Turks sacked Constantinople and raped, pillaged and murdered for three days, as was the custom in those days (the same length of time as the Fourth Crusade), but the Turks were not fellow Christians and they did not set up a Latin Patriarchate but actually elevated the Patriarch of Constantinople to be the Etnarch of all Christians (but the Armenians) in their empire. So, you have fratricide in a sense, combined with horrific crimes and this sort of thing understandably tends to affect folks.

At least Pope Innocent III thought so: "How, indeed, will the church of the Greeks, no matter how severely she is beset with afflictions and persecutions, return into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See, when she has seen in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, who made their swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, drip with Christian blood, they have spared neither religion, nor age, nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics." It should be noted however that when the crusaders took the piles of money, jewels, and gold that they had captured in the sack of Constantinople back to Rome, Innocent III welcomed the stolen items and agreed to let the crusaders back into the Church.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade#Outcome

The second thing is that we must try to forgive this horror that occurred so many centuries ago. And, I think most Orthodox do not blame the current Roman Catholic Pope, bishops, priests or laity for this seminal event. What I think lingers on is the sense that the main problem with the West has been--before and after the Fourth Crusade--her claim of superiority and even primacy if you will. That is why the Fourth Crusade, the filioque clause, the added dogmas and divergent practices are all lumped together and viewed from the prism of the Papacy itself, which represents everything that has been and is wrong with the Roman Catholic Church.

That's right! Because remember, true Christians never, ever, EVER forgive or forget a sin committed against them OR their ancestors. That's how you know you're dealing with a genuine follower of Christ, who, as you may recall, advised His followers NEVER to forgive their persecutors, but to exact revenge whenever possible - "unto ages of ages, Amen!"

Well...I don't know what you're talking about. I have seen nothing but forgiveness and charity since I've been on this forum.

Well...I don't know what you're talking about. I have seen nothing but forgiveness and charity since I've been on this forum.

</sarcasm>

Forgiveness presupposes genuine repentance, or change of mind. No one here holds any Catholic responsible for anything that happened in the past, but the reality is, in its attitude towards the East the Latin Church has not changed its mind. That is made plainly manifest by not only your attitudes towards us, but most clearly by the treatment of your own Eastern Catholics.

So I guess that is the fundamental difference between Catholicism vs. EO and OO...love versus no love.

I'm sure the Orthodox Christians raped and massacred by the Crusaders sympathize with you. Get off your self-constructed moral high horse - the part of RCism that has diverged from Orthodoxy is the only thing attacked here, not RCs.

I see this brought up every so often; It sounds like Islamic rhetoric still used today. However, despite the fourth Crusade being a 1,000 year old event used to justify hate from the EOs against the RCs, the events are not what they are made out to be. The original intent was to take Jerusalem from the Muslims by way of Egypt, yet events were taken out of control from the hands of Pope Innocent III.

I have to say, though based upon only anecdotal evidence, that this is simply not true. First of all, despite the sometimes heated rhetoric around oc.net, I have yet to hear any Orthodox say they hate RCs. Based on what I read on oc.net (always a dangerous practice, I know!), what most RCs don't "get" about the Orthodox is that they don't hate Catholics. They simply don't give it a thought. What they do think is that Catholics have got it wrong, but that's their business.

I have, however, seen quite a bit of rabid anti-Catholicism on the part of evangelicals and Southern Baptists. (this is in the buckle of the Bible Belt, so YMMV.)

(As far as the sack of Constantinople, it is an historical fact, but one which most non-Orthodox haven't a clue about. Like most of Christian history - the majority of people know very little about Christian history, and if they do, it's only from the Reformation onwards. Actually, to most people, except for a few history geeks, the history of Christianity is pretty much irrelevant.)

(Fwiw, my husband, who was raised RC, reports that his Baptist neighbors were concerned for his salvation, since Catholics were obviously not Christian. He also reports that he got an entirely different story about the Schism and the Crusades in parochial school than he found in history.)

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

So I guess that is the fundamental difference between Catholicism vs. EO and OO...love versus no love.

I'm sure the Orthodox Christians raped and massacred by the Crusaders sympathize with you. Get off your self-constructed moral high horse - the part of RCism that has diverged from Orthodoxy is the only thing attacked here, not RCs.

I see this brought up every so often; It sounds like Islamic rhetoric still used today. However, despite the fourth Crusade being a 1,000 year old event used to justify hate from the EOs against the RCs, the events are not what they are made out to be. The original intent was to take Jerusalem from the Muslims by way of Egypt, yet events were taken out of control from the hands of Pope Innocent III.

The Hungarian king was Catholic and had himself agreed to join this Crusade (though this was mostly for political reasons, and he had made no actual preparations to leave). Many of the Crusaders were opposed to attacking Zara, and some, including a force led by the elder Simon de Montfort, refused to participate altogether and returned home. While the Papal legate to the Crusade Cardinal Peter of Capua endorsed the move as necessary to prevent the crusade's complete failure, Pope Innocent III was alarmed at this development and wrote a letter to the Crusading leadership threatening excommunication.[14]

Historian Geoffrey Hindley's The Crusades mentions that in 1202 Pope Innocent III forbade the Crusaders of Western Christendom from committing any atrocious acts on their Christian neighbours, despite wanting to secure papal authority over Byzantium.[15] This letter was concealed from the bulk of the army and the attack proceeded. The citizens of Zara made reference to the fact that they were fellow Catholics by hanging banners marked with crosses from their windows and the walls of the city, but nevertheless the city fell after a brief siege. When Innocent III heard of the sack he sent a letter to the crusaders excommunicating them, and ordered them to return to their holy vows and head for Jerusalem. Out of fear that this would dissolve the army the leaders of the crusade decided not to inform the army of this.

So no, the sack wasn't by the Church, but by a rogue Army lead by Princes', intent on getting their own political agenda fulfilled.

The Vatican lost no time in profitting from it. The same Pope Innocent (what a misnomer!) III called a "ecumenical" council to "legitimize" the spoils. Imposing a Latin Patriarchate on Constantinople, he finally formally accepted Constantinople as a Patriarchate and in second place, after it had moved to first place, due to Rome's apostasy. The Vatican convened its so called 12th "Ecumenical" council of Lateran IV-which it has not repudiated-which stated:

Quote

3. On Heretics

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above [the Ultramontanist filioque faith]. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics. Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defence of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith. Thus whenever anyone is promoted to spiritual or temporal authority, he shall be obliged to confirm this article with an oath. If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics so that these may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith — saving the right of the suzerain provided that he makes no difficulty in the matter and puts no impediment in the way. The same law is to be observed no less as regards those who do not have a suzerain.

Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics. We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated [and remeber, the bull of 1054 so designated the Orthodox Catholics], refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, documents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed. If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the church to such pestilent people nor give them a Christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indult of the apostolic see. Similarly with regulars, let them be punished with losing their privileges in the diocese in which they presume to commit such excesses.

"There are some who holding to the form of religion but denying its power (as the Apostle says) , claim for themselves the authority to preach, whereas the same Apostle says, How shall they preach unless they are sent? Let therefore all those who have been forbidden or not sent to preach, and yet dare publicly or privately to usurp the office of preaching without having received the authority of the apostolic see or the catholic bishop of the place", be bound with the bond of excommunication and, unless they repent very quickly, be punished by another suitable penalty. We add further that each archbishop or bishop, either in person or through his archdeacon or through suitable honest persons, should visit twice or at least once in the year any parish of his in which heretics are said to live. There he should compel three or more men of good repute, or even if it seems expedient the whole neighbourhood, to swear that if anyone knows of heretics there or of any persons who hold secret conventicles or who differ in their life and habits from the normal way of living of the faithful, then he will take care to point them out to the bishop. The bishop himself should summon the accused to his presence, and they should be punished canonically if they are unable to clear themselves of the charge or if after compurgation they relapse into their former errors of faith. If however any of them with damnable obstinacy refuse to honour an oath and so will not take it, let them by this very fact be regarded as heretics. We therefore will and command and, in virtue of obedience, strictly command that bishops see carefully to the effective execution of these things throughout their dioceses, if they wish to avoid canonical penalties. If any bishop is negligent or remiss in cleansing his diocese of the ferment of heresy, then when this shows itself by unmistakeable signs he shall be deposed from his office as bishop and there shall be put in his place a suitable person who both wishes and is able to overthrow the evil of heresy

4. On the pride of the Greeks towards the Latins

Although we would wish to cherish and honour the Greeks who in our days are returning to the obedience of the apostolic see, by preserving their customs and rites as much as we can in the Lord, nevertheless we neither want nor ought to defer to them in matters which bring danger to souls and detract from the church's honour. For, after the Greek church together with certain associates and supporters withdrew from the obedience of the apostolic see, the Greeks began to detest the Latins so much that, among other wicked things which they committed out of contempt for them, when Latin priests celebrated on their altars they would not offer sacrifice on them until they had washed them, as if the altars had been defiled thereby. The Greeks even had the temerity to rebaptize those baptized by the Latins; and some, as we are told, still do not fear to do this. Wishing therefore to remove such a great scandal from God's church, we strictly order, on the advice of this sacred council, that henceforth they do not presume to do such things but rather conform themselves like obedient sons to the holy Roman church, their mother, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd. If anyone however does dare to do such a thing, let him be struck with the sword of excommunication and be deprived of every ecclesiastical office and benefice. [of course, the Orthodox Catholics did and continue to "dare to do such a thing."]

5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord's disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him [no such thing ever happened from the time of the Apostles until the Crudaders came] they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord's cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.[dream on]

71. Crusade to recover the holy Land

It is our ardent desire to liberate the holy Land from infidel hands. We therefore declare, with the approval of this sacred council and on the advice of prudent men who are fully aware of the circumstances of time and place, that crusaders are to make themselves ready so that all who have arranged to go by sea shall assemble in the kingdom of Sicily on 1 June after next : some as necessary and fitting at Brindisi and others at Messina and places neighbouring it on either side, where we too have arranged to be in person at that time, God willing, so that with our advice and help the Christian army may be in good order to set out with divine and apostolic blessing. Those who have decided to go by land should also take care to be ready by the same date. They shall notify us meanwhile so that we may grant them a suitable legate a latere for advice and help. Priests and other clerics who will be in the Christian army, both those under authority and prelates, shall diligently devote themselves to prayer and exhortation, teaching the crusaders by word and example to have the fear and love of God always before their eyes, so that they say or do nothing that might offend the divine majesty. If they ever fall into sin, let them quickly rise up again through true penitence. Let them be humble in heart and in body, keeping to moderation both in food and in dress, avoiding altogether dissensions and rivalries, and putting aside entirely any bitterness or envy, so that thus armed with spiritual and material weapons they may the more fearlessly fight against the enemies of the faith, relying not on their own power but rather trusting in the strength of God. We grant to these clerics that they may receive the fruits of their benefices in full for three years, as if they were resident in the churches, and if necessary they may leave them in pledge for the same time.

To prevent this holy proposal being impeded or delayed, we strictly order all prelates of churches, each in his own locality, diligently to warn and induce those who have abandoned the cross to resume it, and them and others who have taken up the cross, and those who may still do so, to carry out their vows to the Lord. And if necessary they shall compel them to do this without any backsliding, by sentences of excommunication against their persons and of interdict on their lands, excepting only those persons who find themselves faced with an impediment of such a kind that their vow deservedly ought to be commuted or deferred in accordance with the directives of the apostolic see. In order that nothing connected with this business of Jesus Christ be omitted, we will and order patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots and others who have the care of souls to preach the cross zealously to those entrusted to them. Let them beseech kings, dukes, princes, margraves, counts, barons and other magnates, as well as the communities of cities, vills and towns — in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit, the one, only, true and eternal God — that those who do not go in person to the aid of the holy Land should contribute, according to their means, an appropriate number of fighting men together with their necessary expenses for three years, for the remission of their sins in accordance with what has already been explained in general letters and will be explained below for still greater assurance. We wish to share in this remission not only those who contribute ships of their own but also those who are zealous enough to build them for this purpose. To those who refuse, if there happen to be any who are so ungrateful to our lord God, we firmly declare in the name of the apostle that they should know that they will have to answer to us for this on the last day of final judgment before the fearful judge.

In other words, THE SWORD THAT ST. PETER PUT INTO THE SHEATH AT THE LORD'S COMMAND, POPE INNOCENT III ON HIS OWN COMMAND PICKED UP AND SWUNG, AND SWUNG HARD.

Quote

Let them consider beforehand, however with what conscience and with what security it was that they were able to confess before the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, to whom the Father gave all things into his hands, if in this business, which is as it were peculiarly his, they refuse to serve him who was crucified for sinners, by whose beneficence they are sustained and indeed by whose blood they have been redeemed.

Lest we appear to be laying on men's shoulders heavy and unbearable burdens which we are not willing to lighten, like those who say yes but do nothing behold we, from what we have been able to save over and above necessities and moderate expenses, grant and give thirty thousand pounds to this work, besides the shipping which we are giving to the crusaders of Rome and neighbouring districts. We will assign for this purpose, moreover, three thousand marks of silver, which we have left over from the alms of certain of the faithful, the rest having been faithfully distributed for the needs and benefit of the aforesaid Land by the hands of the abbot patriarch of Jerusalem, of happy memory, and of the masters of the Temple and of the Hospital. We wish, however, that other prelates of churches and all clerics may participate and share both in the merit and in the reward. We therefore decree, with the general approval of the council, that all clerics, both those under authority and prelates, shall give a twentieth of their ecclesiastical revenues for three years to the aid of the holy Land, by means of the persons appointed by the apostolic see for this purpose; the only exceptions being certain religious who are rightly to be exempted from this taxation and likewise those persons who have taken or will take the cross and so will go in person. We and our brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, shall pay a full tenth. Let all know, moreover, that they are obliged to observe this faithfully under pain of excommunication, so that those who knowingly deceive in this matter shall incur the sentence of excommunication. Because it is right that those who persevere in the service of the heavenly ruler should in all justice enjoy special privilege, and because the day of departure is somewhat more than a year ahead, crusaders shall therefore be. exempt from taxes or levies and other burdens. We take their persons and goods under the protection of St Peter and ourself once they have taken up the cross. We ordain that they are to be protected by archbishops, bishops and all prelates of the church, and that protectors of their own are to be specially appointed for this purpose, so that their goods are to remain intact and undisturbed until they are known for certain to be dead or to have returned. If anyone dares to act contrary to this, let him be curbed by ecclesiastical censure.

If any of those setting out are bound by oath to pay interest, we ordain that their creditors shall be compelled by the same punishment to release them from their oath and to desist from exacting the interest; if any of the creditors does force them to pay the interest, we command that he be forced by similar punishment to restore it. We order that Jews be compelled by the secular power to remit interest, and that until they do so all intercourse shall be denied them by all Christ's faithful under pain of excommunication. Secular princes shall provide a suitable deferral for those who cannot now pay their debts to Jews, so that after they have undertaken the journey and until there is certain knowledge of their death or of their return, they shall not incur the inconvenience of paying interest. The Jews shall be compelled to add to the capital, after they have deducted their necessary expenses, the revenues which they are meanwhile receiving from property held by them on security. For, such a benefit seems to entail not much loss, inasmuch as it postpones the repayment but does not cancel the debt. Prelates of churches who are negligent in showing justice to crusaders and their families should know that they will be severely punished.

Furthermore, since corsairs and pirates greatly impede help for the holy Land, by capturing and plundering those who are travelling to and from it, we bind with the bond of excommunication everyone who helps or supports them. We forbid anyone, under threat of anathema, knowingly to communicate with them by contracting to buy or to sell; and we order rulers of cities and their territories to restrain and curb such persons from this iniquity. Otherwise, since to be unwilling to disquiet evildoers is none other than to encourage them, and since he who fails to oppose a manifest crime is not without a touch of secret complicity, it is our wish and command that prelates of churches exercise ecclesiastical severity against their persons and lands. We excommunicate and anathematize, moreover, those false and impious Christians who, in opposition to Christ and the Christian people, convey arms to the Saracens and iron and timber for their galleys. We decree that those who sell them galleys or ships, and those who act as pilots in pirate Saracen ships, or give them any advice or help by way of machines or anything else, to the detriment of the holy Land, are to be punished with deprivation of their possessions and are to become the slaves of those who capture them. We order this sentence to be renewed on Sundays and feast-days in all maritime towns; and the bosom of the church is not to be opened to such persons unless they send in aid of the holy Land the whole of the damnable wealth which they received and the same amount of their own, so that they are punished in proportion to their offence. If perchance they do not pay, they are to be punished in other ways in order that through their punishment others may be deterred from venturing upon similar rash actions. In addition, we prohibit and on pain of anathema forbid all Christians, for four years, to send or take their ships across to the lands of the Saracens who dwell in the east, so that by this a greater supply of shipping may be made ready for those wanting to cross over to help the holy Land, and so that the aforesaid Saracens may be deprived of the not inconsiderable help which they have been accustomed to receiving from this.

Although tournaments have been forbidden in a general way on pain of a fixed penalty at various councils, we strictly forbid them to be held for three years, under pain of excommunication, because the business of the crusade is much hindered by them at this present time. Because it is of the utmost necessity for the carrying out of this business that rulers of the Christian people keep peace with each other, we therefore ordain, on the advice of this holy general synod, that peace be generally kept in the whole Christian world for at least four years, so that those in conflict shall be brought by the prelates of churches to conclude a definitive peace or to observe inviolably a firm truce. Those who refuse to comply shall be most strictly compelled to do so by an excommunication against their persons and an interdict on their lands, unless their wrongdoing is so great that they ought not to enjoy peace. If it happens that they make light of the church's censure, they may deservedly fear that the secular power will be invoked by ecclesiastical authority against them as disturbers of the business of him who was crucified.

We therefore, trusting in the mercy of almighty God and in the authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, do grant, by the power of binding and loosing that God has conferred upon us, albeit unworthy, unto all those who undertake this work in person and at their own expense, full pardon for their sins about which they are heartily contrite and have spoken in confession, and we promise them an increase of eternal life at the recompensing of the just; also to those who do not go there in person but send suitable men at their own expense, according to their means and status, and likewise to those who go in person but at others' expense, we grant full pardon for their sins. We wish and grant to share in this remission, according to the quality of their help and the intensity of their devotion, all who shall contribute suitably from their goods to the aid of the said Land or who give useful advice and help. Finally, this general synod imparts the benefit of its blessings to all who piously set out on this common enterprise in order that it may contribute worthily to their salvation.

Rather than turnign from the sack of Constantinople, the Vatican then later convened its so called 13th "ecumenical" council of Lyons I, with its Latin emperor and its Latin patriarchs it imposed (Alexandria and Jerusalem, however, being outside the Crusaders reach) in session to try to solidify Crusader control when the armies of the Orthodox sovereigns laid seige to Constatinople to retake her and place the Orthodox EP in exile back on the cathedra of SS. Andrew, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom and Photios:

Quote

2. {47} On help for the empire of Constantinople

Though we are engaged in difficult matters and distracted by manifold anxieties, yet among those things which demand our constant attention is the liberation of the empire of Constantinople. [the armies of the Orthodox had surrounded the capital] This we desire with our whole heart, this is ever the object of our thoughts. Yet though the apostolic see has eagerly sought a remedy on its behalf by earnest endeavour and many forms of assistance, though for long Catholics have striven by grievous toils, by burdensome expense, by care, sweat, tears and bloodshed, yet the hand that extended such aid could not wholly, hindered by sin, snatch the empire from the yoke of the enemy [i.e. the Orthodox]. Thus not without cause we are troubled with grief. But because the body of the church would be shamefully deformed by the lack of a loved member, namely the aforesaid empire [that it calls the empire, rather than the patriarchate, a member of the church is telling], and be sadly weakened and suffer loss; and because it could rightly be assigned to our sloth and that of the church, if it were deprived of the support of the faithful, and left to be freely oppressed by its enemies; we firmly propose to come to the help of the empire with swift and effective aid. Thus at the same time as the church eagerly rises to its assistance and stretches out the hand of defence, the empire can be saved from the dominion of its foes, and be brought back by the Lord's guidance to the unity of that same body, and may feel after the crushing hammer of its enemies the consoling hand of the church its mother, and after the blindness of error regain its sight by the possession of the catholic faith [the surrounding armies, not the Crusaders, professed the Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church]. It is the more fitting that prelates of churches and other ecclesiastics should be watchful and diligent for its liberation, and bestow their help and assistance, the more they are bound to work for the increase of the faith and of ecclesiastical liberty, which could chiefly come about from the liberation of the empire; and especially because while the empire is helped, assistance is consequently rendered to the holy Land.

Indeed, so that the help to the empire may be speedy and useful, we decree, with the general approval of the council, that half of all incomes of dignities parsonages and ecclesiastical prebends, and of other benefices of ecclesiastics who do not personally reside in them for at least six months, whether they hold one or more, shall be assigned in full for three years to the help of the said empire, having been collected by those designated by the apostolic see. Those are exempt who are employed in our service or in that of our brother cardinals and of their prelates, those who are on pilgrimages or in schools, or engaged in the business of their own churches at their direction, and those who have or will take up the badge of the cross for the aid of the holy Land or who will set out in person to the help of the said empire; but if any of these, apart from the crusaders and those setting out, receive from ecclesiastical revenues more than a hundred silver marks, they should pay a third part of the remainder in each of the three years. This is to be observed notwithstanding any customs or statutes of churches to the contrary, or any indulgences granted by the apostolic see to these churches or persons, confirmed by oath or any other means. And if by chance in this matter any shall knowingly be guilty of any deceit, they shall incur the sentence of excommunication.

We ourselves, from the revenues of the church of Rome, after first deducting a tenth from them to be assigned to the aid of the holy Land, will assign a tenth part in full for the support of the said empire. Further, when help is given to the empire, assistance is given in a very particular way and directed to the recovery of the holy Land, while we are striving for the liberation of the empire itself. Thus trusting in the mercy of almighty God and the authority of his blessed apostles Peter and Paul, from the power of binding and loosing which he conferred upon us though unworthy, we grant pardon of their sins to all those who come to the help of the said empire, and we desire they may enjoy that privilege and immunity which is granted to those who come to the help of the holy Land.

This council had not been repudiated by the Vatican. So the heirs of Nero, speaking ex cathedra, can stop protesting their "innocence."

The Crusaders, when they sacked Constantinople, placed a prostitute (literally) on the throne of SS. Andrew, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom and Photios. We need no love from the whores of Rome.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So I guess that is the fundamental difference between Catholicism vs. EO and OO...love versus no love.

I'm sure the Orthodox Christians raped and massacred by the Crusaders sympathize with you. Get off your self-constructed moral high horse - the part of RCism that has diverged from Orthodoxy is the only thing attacked here, not RCs.

I see this brought up every so often; It sounds like Islamic rhetoric still used today. However, despite the fourth Crusade being a 1,000 year old event used to justify hate from the EOs against the RCs, the events are not what they are made out to be. The original intent was to take Jerusalem from the Muslims by way of Egypt, yet events were taken out of control from the hands of Pope Innocent III.

I have to say, though based upon only anecdotal evidence, that this is simply not true. First of all, despite the sometimes heated rhetoric around oc.net, I have yet to hear any Orthodox say they hate RCs. Based on what I read on oc.net (always a dangerous practice, I know!), what most RCs don't "get" about the Orthodox is that they don't hate Catholics. They simply don't give it a thought. What they do think is that Catholics have got it wrong, but that's their business.

I have, however, seen quite a bit of rabid anti-Catholicism on the part of evangelicals and Southern Baptists. (this is in the buckle of the Bible Belt, so YMMV.)

(As far as the sack of Constantinople, it is an historical fact, but one which most non-Orthodox haven't a clue about. Like most of Christian history - the majority of people know very little about Christian history, and if they do, it's only from the Reformation onwards. Actually, to most people, except for a few history geeks, the history of Christianity is pretty much irrelevant.)

(Fwiw, my husband, who was raised RC, reports that his Baptist neighbors were concerned for his salvation, since Catholics were obviously not Christian. He also reports that he got an entirely different story about the Schism and the Crusades in parochial school than he found in history.)

YMMV?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well...I don't know what you're talking about. I have seen nothing but forgiveness and charity since I've been on this forum.

</sarcasm>

Forgiveness presupposes genuine repentance, or change of mind. No one here holds any Catholic responsible for anything that happened in the past, but the reality is, in its attitude towards the East the Latin Church has not changed its mind. That is made plainly manifest by not only your attitudes towards us, but most clearly by the treatment of your own Eastern Catholics.

Indeed. Let the Vatican repudiate its Lateran IV and Lyons I.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Paisius - when Jesus forgave His executioners, had they shown any signs of genuine repentance?

That is a red herring. First of all there is nothing for me or any other Orthodox to forgive for an event that happened centuries ago. Second, how could we pretend to call ourselves Christians if we weren't prepared to forgive any offense towards us? This is not about forgiveness, it's about the actions of the crusaders being indicative of the Latin attitude towards the East, an attitude that persist to this day.

Paisius - when Jesus forgave His executioners, had they shown any signs of genuine repentance?

That is a red herring. First of all there is nothing for me or any other Orthodox to forgive for an event that happened centuries ago. Second, how could we pretend to call ourselves Christians if we weren't prepared to forgive any offense towards us? This is not about forgiveness, it's about the actions of the crusaders being indicative of the Latin attitude towards the East, an attitude that persist to this day.

Paisius - when Jesus forgave His executioners, had they shown any signs of genuine repentance?

We're talking about some occasional gripes on an internet discussion board. A little bit of perspective please?

Yes, I've been somewhat surprised by the tone from RC posters here. Granted things can get a little heated, but it is a discussion/debate after all. (Although having grown up in a family that often functioned like the American branch of the Oxford Debating Society, only a whole lot rougher, my standards for civil debate may be a little different.)

Anyhow, IMHO, it's not about forgiving or not forgiving, we just think you're wrong - that's all.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

You fail to understand that, to the Orthodox on the ground at that time, the actions of the Crusades in general and the Fourth Crusade in particular, were completely scandalous. One cannot simply brush off even something that got out of hand. While Pope Innocent III was appalled, the results of the Fourth Crusade remained, and the attitude of the Papacy toward the Eastern Churches did not change.

Indeed!

And when the time came to divide the spoils, the supreme pontiff Innocent III went to the head of the line.

I think it was Schmemann who pointed out that it was the Fourth Crusade which brought Ultramontanism home. Since no EP ever received the pallium from any Pope of Rome, as the supreme pontiff demanded and canonized in the "ecumenical" council-never repudiated by the Vatican-he called to legitimize the sack and implement its Ultramontanist attitude, the Orthodox at the capital didn't know what Ultramontanism meant until the Crusaders taught them.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Shall I list all of the Latin offenses against your very own Eastern Catholics that demonstrates the attitude is still there?

It's stupid to suggest that just because we believe that the Catholic Church is superior to the Eastern Orthodox Church, that such necessarily leads to mistreatment of EOs. You guys believe the same thing about your Church (that it is superior to ours) and yet you don't think that it necessarily leads to persecution of Catholics.

our friends have reset the spedometer, and think we haven't noticed that, nor that we can see that the clunker has more mileage than what the odometer now says.

Let the supreme Pontiff reign supreme over Vatican city, and leave the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church alone.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Shall I list all of the Latin offenses against your very own Eastern Catholics that demonstrates the attitude is still there?

It's stupid to suggest that just because we believe that the Catholic Church is superior to the Eastern Orthodox Church, that such necessarily leads to mistreatment of EOs. You guys believe the same thing about your Church (that it is superior to ours) and yet you don't think that it necessarily leads to persecution of Catholics.

Shall I list all of the Latin offenses against your very own Eastern Catholics that demonstrates the attitude is still there?

It's stupid to suggest that just because we believe that the Catholic Church is superior to the Eastern Orthodox Church, that such necessarily leads to mistreatment of EOs. You guys believe the same thing about your Church (that it is superior to ours) and yet you don't think that it necessarily leads to persecution of Catholics.

LOL. Because by and large, it hasn't. The history of the Vatican shows a consitent, other story.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Shall I list all of the Latin offenses against your very own Eastern Catholics that demonstrates the attitude is still there?

It's stupid to suggest that just because we believe that the Catholic Church is superior to the Eastern Orthodox Church, that such necessarily leads to mistreatment of EOs. You guys believe the same thing about your Church (that it is superior to ours) and yet you don't think that it necessarily leads to persecution of Catholics.

Did you even read the post you were responding to?

Don't confuse Papist with the facts.

edit: fixed reference to poster. -Schultz

« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 04:57:31 PM by Schultz »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Everyone knows that I and the others Catholics here at OC.net are the ones who sacked Constantinople.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.

I would, but the biggest dangers is that Wyatt and I are gonna sack constantinople again. I mean, as Catholics, its just boiling up in our blood. We can't control ourselves.... Oh no... losing... control... must... no can't... no must...sack... Con...stan...tinople....ahhh brains!!! Need Constantinoplian brains!!!

Paisius - when Jesus forgave His executioners, had they shown any signs of genuine repentance?

That is a red herring. First of all there is nothing for me or any other Orthodox to forgive for an event that happened centuries ago. Second, how could we pretend to call ourselves Christians if we weren't prepared to forgive any offense towards us? This is not about forgiveness, it's about the actions of the crusaders being indicative of the Latin attitude towards the East, an attitude that persist to this day.

There is something to forgive if you plan on bringing it up in debates and attempt to use it as a valid argument, as Fr. George did. It's cute how you all think it is appropriate to bring it up, but then when we talk about forgiveness you all claim that you are not really mad about it anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation. Either you hold us liable for the sacking of Constantinople solely because of our Communion with Rome or you don't. Now...which is it?

Paisius - when Jesus forgave His executioners, had they shown any signs of genuine repentance?

That is a red herring. First of all there is nothing for me or any other Orthodox to forgive for an event that happened centuries ago. Second, how could we pretend to call ourselves Christians if we weren't prepared to forgive any offense towards us? This is not about forgiveness, it's about the actions of the crusaders being indicative of the Latin attitude towards the East, an attitude that persist to this day.

There is something to forgive if you plan on bringing it up in debates and attempt to use it as a valid argument, as Fr. George did. It's cute how you all think it is appropriate to bring it up, but then when we talk about forgiveness you all claim that you are not really mad about it anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation. Either you hold us liable for the sacking of Constantinople solely because of our Communion with Rome or you don't. Now...which is it?

Having been forced fed the Ultramontanist poisoned cake, we know what is in it. And yet the Vatican complains we don't come over for coffee and cake. That is it: no matter how much icing has been put on that cake since Vatican II, we know it's the same cake moldering underneath. Take your cake and eat it too. We're fine with the Bread Who came down from heaven.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Paisius - when Jesus forgave His executioners, had they shown any signs of genuine repentance?

That is a red herring. First of all there is nothing for me or any other Orthodox to forgive for an event that happened centuries ago. Second, how could we pretend to call ourselves Christians if we weren't prepared to forgive any offense towards us? This is not about forgiveness, it's about the actions of the crusaders being indicative of the Latin attitude towards the East, an attitude that persist to this day.

There is something to forgive if you plan on bringing it up in debates and attempt to use it as a valid argument, as Fr. George did. It's cute how you all think it is appropriate to bring it up, but then when we talk about forgiveness you all claim that you are not really mad about it anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation. Either you hold us liable for the sacking of Constantinople solely because of our Communion with Rome or you don't. Now...which is it?

What argument did someone try to make? You called all Orthodox Christians unloving and Fr George made a retort. So first you act like an ass yesterday and now criticize us for being unforgiving. You need to get a grip my friend.

Everyone knows that I and the others Catholics here at OC.net are the ones who sacked Constantinople.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.

I would, but the biggest dangers is that Wyatt and I are gonna sack constantinople again. I mean, as Catholics, its just boiling up in our blood. We can't control ourselves.... Oh no... losing... control... must... no can't... no must...sack... Con...stan...tinople....ahhh brains!!! Need Constantinoplian brains!!!

..."it hurts to be dead"...

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Paisius - when Jesus forgave His executioners, had they shown any signs of genuine repentance?

That is a red herring. First of all there is nothing for me or any other Orthodox to forgive for an event that happened centuries ago. Second, how could we pretend to call ourselves Christians if we weren't prepared to forgive any offense towards us? This is not about forgiveness, it's about the actions of the crusaders being indicative of the Latin attitude towards the East, an attitude that persist to this day.

There is something to forgive if you plan on bringing it up in debates and attempt to use it as a valid argument, as Fr. George did. It's cute how you all think it is appropriate to bring it up, but then when we talk about forgiveness you all claim that you are not really mad about it anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation. Either you hold us liable for the sacking of Constantinople solely because of our Communion with Rome or you don't. Now...which is it?

Having been forced fed the Ultramontanist poisoned cake, we know what is in it. And yet the Vatican complains we don't come over for coffee and cake. That is it: no matter how much icing has been put on that cake since Vatican II, we know it's the same cake moldering underneath. Take your cake and eat it too. We're fine with the Bread Who came down from heaven.

So, back to the original point, do you believe that the blood of the sack of Constantinople is on modern day RC's hands or not?

Paisius - when Jesus forgave His executioners, had they shown any signs of genuine repentance?

That is a red herring. First of all there is nothing for me or any other Orthodox to forgive for an event that happened centuries ago. Second, how could we pretend to call ourselves Christians if we weren't prepared to forgive any offense towards us? This is not about forgiveness, it's about the actions of the crusaders being indicative of the Latin attitude towards the East, an attitude that persist to this day.

There is something to forgive if you plan on bringing it up in debates and attempt to use it as a valid argument, as Fr. George did. It's cute how you all think it is appropriate to bring it up, but then when we talk about forgiveness you all claim that you are not really mad about it anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation. Either you hold us liable for the sacking of Constantinople solely because of our Communion with Rome or you don't. Now...which is it?

What argument did someone try to make? You called all Orthodox Christians unloving and Fr George made a retort. So first you act like an ass yesterday and now criticize us for being unforgiving. You need to get a grip my friend.

Well it is a poor argument on Fr. George's part. I point out that a large majority of EOs are hateful to RCs now in the present (which one only has to look at some of the posts on this forum to realize), and he backtracks and tries to rehash something that some RCs did hundreds of years ago. Grasp at straws much?

Everyone knows that I and the others Catholics here at OC.net are the ones who sacked Constantinople.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.

I would, but the biggest dangers is that Wyatt and I are gonna sack constantinople again. I mean, as Catholics, its just boiling up in our blood. We can't control ourselves.... Oh no... losing... control... must... no can't... no must...sack... Con...stan...tinople....ahhh brains!!! Need Constantinoplian brains!!!

The point I'm making is it wasn't the desire of the Church to make any military move after Constantinople. I'll admit, after the deed was done, the Pope used the current situation to the Catholic Church advantage. Probably knowing, without means of communication beyond foot, trying to reconcile what had been done and then moving forward with unification would be that much harder. As you can see, the event hasn't been forgotten even 800 years later.

The point I'm making is it wasn't the desire of the Church to make any military move after Constantinople. I'll admit, after the deed was done, the Pope used the current situation to the Catholic Church advantage. Probably knowing, without means of communication beyond foot, trying to reconcile what had been done and then moving forward with unification would be that much harder. As you can see, the event hasn't been forgotten even 800 years later.

And as had been explained, there is a reason it hasn't been forgotten. The event epitomizes a Latin attitude that persists to this day. Just look at how the Vatican treats its fellow Eastern Catholics.

The point I'm making is it wasn't the desire of the Church to make any military move after Constantinople. I'll admit, after the deed was done, the Pope used the current situation to the Catholic Church advantage. Probably knowing, without means of communication beyond foot, trying to reconcile what had been done and then moving forward with unification would be that much harder. As you can see, the event hasn't been forgotten even 800 years later.

And as had been explained, there is a reason it hasn't been forgotten. The event epitomizes a Latin attitude that persists to this day. Just look at how the Vatican treats its fellow Eastern Catholics.

You mean by asking them to return to their Eastern Traditions? How aweful. Bad! Bad Vatican!